You guys make science look real bad. No wonder so many people don't trust science.

Not sure about that, Kris. I think what makes science (or rather any particular theory) look bad is if it turns out not to be true when tested by experiment.

I got interested by chance in ID about 6 years ago and, since then, have been banned at all but one (ARN - which has adopted the alternative strategy of not permitting new registrations) of the ID sites that I am aware of that actually permit comments. It seemed to me that asking simple questions about ID or correcting misinformation about evolutionary theory were the usual reasons for a ban (though not the pretext, if mentioned at all).

ID's problem (as regards to science rather than politics or apologetics) in my view is simply that there is no coherent ID theory and being asked for details seems to be upsetting for ID proponents.

Solution; get a testable theory of ID, unless you know where to find one already.

Alan, I can't reasonably comment on why you were banned from those sites since I haven't seen what was said by you or anyone else. I have read some discussions on Uncommon Descent (UD), and have noticed that some of the ID proponents do argue fairly strongly at times but they're a LOT more decent about it than people typically are here, or on sites like Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula. I've also noticed that some of the ID proponents quote or cite scientific studies to support some of their claims.

I'm not an ID-ist or a creationist or religious, but the concept of ID or creation is somewhat intriguing. I don't usually put much thought into it and would enjoy and study nature just as much whether ID or creation were true or not. From what I've read about ID, especially on the UD site, I think I understand what they're getting at. If I do, I'd say the 'irreducible complexity' part is the most compelling. That doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with it or with any other part of the typical ID arguments, but I do find it interesting.

One of the problems with ID is that different people see it in different ways. Some people cram religion into it while others say religion isn't the basis for it and has nothing to do with it. Whether there's a 'testable' theory about ID or creation right now or not, I have an open mind about them. No one knows what's behind everything on Earth or in the universe. Science doesn't have all the answers and neither do religious people.

One of the problems with science is that it too is looked at in different ways by different people. There are lots of disagreements in science and people are just as likely to see what they want to see in science as others are in religious beliefs. There are zealots in both arenas.

It's not so much that ordinarily religious people are a problem for science. It's the zealots who are the problem. The ones who want to push their religious beliefs into everyone's mind and life. The same could be said about science zealots. They also want to push their beliefs into everyone's mind and life as though it were a complete replacement for religion. Most people don't take kindly to being forced and that's why sites like this one, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, and other religion bashing sites are likely doing more harm than good when it comes to getting people to follow and trust science and scientists.

Try to imagine what a young person would think if they came here or to one of the other sites I mentioned and read all the vitriol against religion. What impression would it give them about science and scientists? Would they come away with more knowledge about science and nature or would they see science and scientists as obsessed religion haters with a HUGE chip on their shoulders?

Also try to imagine a face to face meeting where one side is talking like many of the people here do. Insults, name calling, arrogance, attacks, etc. wouldn't go very far in convincing someone that science is a good thing or that scientists are nice people, and especially if that someone already has a belief system that is anything contrary to science.

Try ordering a smoker not to smoke. Try ordering a drug user not to use drugs. Try ordering a hooker to stop having sex for money. Try ordering a religious person to give up religion. Try ridiculing, insulting, and attacking them and see how well it works.

There has to be a more effective way. Just think if sites like this and the other religion bashing sites were strictly devoted to educating people about science and nature. It could be interesting and fun, with healthy, honest, informative discussions that make people want to come back to learn more.

Kids are the future. If anyone wants them to like and trust science, science and scientists are going to have to appeal to them in a way that attracts them. The same thing goes for attracting adults. Simply bashing religion or anyone who questions science isn't going to accomplish that. It's just going to push people away.

--------------The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

You guys make science look real bad. No wonder so many people don't trust science.

Not sure about that, Kris. I think what makes science (or rather any particular theory) look bad is if it turns out not to be true when tested by experiment.

I got interested by chance in ID about 6 years ago and, since then, have been banned at all but one (ARN - which has adopted the alternative strategy of not permitting new registrations) of the ID sites that I am aware of that actually permit comments. It seemed to me that asking simple questions about ID or correcting misinformation about evolutionary theory were the usual reasons for a ban (though not the pretext, if mentioned at all).

ID's problem (as regards to science rather than politics or apologetics) in my view is simply that there is no coherent ID theory and being asked for details seems to be upsetting for ID proponents.

Solution; get a testable theory of ID, unless you know where to find one already.

Alan, I can't reasonably comment on why you were banned from those sites since I haven't seen what was said by you or anyone else. I have read some discussions on Uncommon Descent (UD), and have noticed that some of the ID proponents do argue fairly strongly at times but they're a LOT more decent about it than people typically are here, or on sites like Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula. I've also noticed that some of the ID proponents quote or cite scientific studies to support some of their claims... snip

Kris,

I will agree with you that the tone at Pharyngula can sometimes be counter-productive, but all of these sites, especially PT, are paragons of tolerance compared with UD or TT. If you are interested, I can review for you precisely why I was banned from UD. I am sure many others here can do the same. The data are in, respectful dissent is not allowed. It matters little whether the remaining contributors are polite to each other - the dialog has been stifled, leaving the echo chamber free to MISQUOTE and MISCITE scientific studies - no-one is left there to correct them.To repeat, if you are interested, I can show you why I was banned. But I don't think you are interested, I think you are just a concern troll. I predict your reply will focus on my penultimate sentence.

--------------I came to the conclusion in 2003 that entropy was the opposite of gravity,

And why don't any of you bitch about the moderating, censoring, and banning on Panda's Thumb, the Bathroom Wall, Pharyngula, and here? Is it only considered moderating, censoring, and banning when YOU'RE the ones who aren't allowed to say whatever you want, where and when you want?

Do any of you own a mirror?

Ah the classic line.

Kris says "Of course I can't prove it, because I want it to be true. The fact that it isn't true is not my problem. I'll post this scree that it's 'obvious'."

Let's see... does anyone here, including Kris, think I'm a hypocrite. If so, please post links to the places where I have shown my hypocrisy. Please, I want to know... since I, more than anything else on Gaia's Green Earth, loathe hypocrites.

But you can't do it, Kris. You can't show that I'm a hypocrite (because I'm not). And you're too cowardly to admit that you are wrong.

Whatever, if you ever want to have an adult conversation, let me know.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Kris, do you, perchance, know why there are three threads about 'Uncommon descent' on this page?

Do you know why, all the users from here, repost all their comments that they would have made there, here instead?

I'm saying this in all honesty, I really encourage you to read those threads here at ATBC. I really want to know, if, after reading all of those threads, you think that UD allows 'discussion'.

BTW: What you started off with at PT, wasn't 'discussion'. It was telling us all we are wrong. Do you walk into a party and tell everyone that they are too drunk and they'll die? Do you get offended when they tell you to 'fuck off'?

I know you think that you are a pargon of reason, but you come off to us as an arrogant little snot. If you don't like the way that we treat me, you might consider acting a little nicer.

For example, proving to me that I am ahypocrite by posting the material that led you to this conclusion.

That being said, I fully admit that I have different moods and my response to you may vary depending on how I feel at the time. However, I would never, ever publish contact information for someone without their express permission and would never threaten anyone with physical harm merely for disagreeing with me. Defending myself, that's another story and I hope you don't have to find out what that story is.

Now, do you have something you want to talk about or not? Can you do so in a reasonable manner? I honestly don't know if you can or not.

I ask this question of creationists all the time, so I'll ask it of you as well. Are you aware of the kind of reputation you have developed in your short time here? Are you aware that we can't read your thoughts and that the ONLY information we have about you is what you post here? Read ONLY the things you post here and ask yourself, "is this me?" Would I show these posts to my mother (or someone else you greatly respect)?

If you answer honestly to those questions, then I hope you gain some wisdom out of it.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Kris complains of moderation... yet he now has 3 entire threads devoted to him. Fascinating.

As an experiment, why don't you run over to UD or one of the other pro-ID sites and ask for your own thread or byline. See how far you get... that would be the scientific method of determining who moderates more.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Alan, I can't reasonably comment on why you were banned from those sites since I haven't seen what was said by you or anyone else.

It's not important but there is a dedicated thread listing and detailing some of the moderating shenanigans at UD.

The rest of your comment does not appear to be addressed to me particularly and you seem to have had other replies. I am all for the scientific approach. If you want to raise some scientific issue here why not just do it and see what happens. Unless the question is one of identifying European wildlife, you'll find commenters here, many of whom are working scientists, pretty knowledgeable. If you get abused, your hypothesis will be confirmed.

I'm just not getting a real high signal to noise ratio from him, and frankly if he has anything of importance to say, he's already set expectations in the other direction with his constant 'tu quoque' blather.

If we're nice, he's a jackass.If we respond to his jackassery in like manner, that is proof that he's right.If we bend over backwards to give him space to have a decent discussion, that's an excuse to accuse us all of being worse that the creotards and godbots he claims he isn't.

He is not acting and speaking in good faith, full stop. His intent seems to be pointless monkey-wrenching for the sheer puerile joy of being a destructive little git.

I would prefer to see some strong evidence that my cynicism is misplaced, but prior experience says that this is not at all likely.

The MadPanda, FCD

--------------"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

Try ordering a smoker not to smoke. Try ordering a drug user not to use drugs. Try ordering a hooker to stop having sex for money. Try ordering a religious person to give up religion. Try ridiculing, insulting, and attacking them and see how well it works.

You're so funny, "Kris". Here's one for you: try actually making a valid argument that parallels what we actually rant about here.

See...here's the problem - what group of smoker has ever tried to get smoking taught in public schools by claiming it was science? What drug group has ever tried to get drug use taught in schools claiming it was science? What hooker has tried to teach prostitution or actually hook in schools claiming it was science? Hmmm...any? No? Then your request above is a non-sequitur; it has zero to do with why we bash ID/creationism and the institution of Christian fundamentalism that dishonestly promotes such tripe as science.

Try again.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. †Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

If I were commenting on the DI site I wouldn't say things like I do here. The reason being that they are much more likely to actually discuss something than to resort to name calling and other insults. On this site, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, and other religion bashing sites the vitriol is so out of control that the only way to get you guys to even pay attention is to be as blunt as possible.

I agree with you about the lynch-mob mentality that can erupt in the Pharyngula comments (although it's far from being just there) but isn't that the price you pay for free speech? †Free speech is not about just allowing what you personally find agreeable and inoffensive, it is in the quote (wrongly) attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

UD and DI are criticized because they are far less tolerant of dissent than PT.

Quote

The DI site has likely received so many attacks, insults, and threats that they probably just figure it's best to not allow comments at all, and frankly, I don't blame them.

Website administrators are fully entitled to impose whatever standards of moderation they choose and any visitors should expect to be held to them. †But if they do subject comments to draconian restrictions they cannot at the same time present themselves as champions of free enquiry and speech, not without being called on it.

Quote

I was banned from Panda's Thumb and the Bathroom Wall and Pharyngula. Some of my comments were either removed or never posted.

I was called a "moral monster" by Bully Arrington and later banned from Uncommon Descent. †Many years back I was also the victim of a pack attack on Pharyngula for arguing againt abortion. †The difference was UD banned me, PZ didn't.

Quote

The vast majority of the people who post on Panda's Thumb, the Bathroom Wall, Pharyngula, and other religion bashing sites aren't really standing up for science. They're just haters who need something to hate and bash, and if it weren't religion it would just be something else.

I see them more as reactionary. †The wildebeeste infidels or gnu atheists or whatever they call themselves are a reaction to the centuries of oppression of non-believers by the various religions. †Even today there are many in this country that don't believe atheists should be citizens and that they rank below pedophiles in terms of respectability. †As for the chances of a self-proclaimed atheist being elected to public office they are usually calculated at a p-value of snowball-in-hell. †There is a Dark Side to religion that cannot be ignored.

Quote

If the science is well done but is still provisional or incomplete, don't be afraid to admit it. Stop acting like you know it all or that science knows it all. Acting like that makes you look as pompous and delusional as the most flagrant religious wackos.

Scientists are human just like everyone else so you will find examples who overstate their case for various reasons. †Mostly, though, they are well aware of the limitations of their knowledge, more so than the critics who are usually responsible for setting up the strawman of the arrogant boffin. †

Need I remind you that Newtonian mechanics were superseded by relativity theory, not as a result of lay critics pointing out holes that professional physicists were supposed to have missed, but because scientists understood in detail the problems with the old theory and therefore what its successor would need to do. †A number of scientists were groping towards a solution, Einstein managed to get there first.

Well-established theories are not overturned easily and that's as it should be. †If you have something that works reasonably well, you only give it up when someone offers something demonstrably better. †Science isn't about defending some dogma - if that were the case biologists would still be defending the inerrancy of every last word of On the Origin of Species - it is about hanging on to something that works until something that works better comes along.

Many of you regularly argue that ID and creationism and religion in general don't have a satisfactory 'replacement' for the theory of evolution or just about any other aspect of science. You expect them to have that satisfactory replacement before you will even consider any of their theories or beliefs (take your pick). Well, what does science have that will satisfactorily replace all religious beliefs? For instance, does science have anything that will provide people the comfort and feeling of security they get from their religious beliefs? How about the companionship?

Science isn't trying to replace religion as the "opium of the people", it is just trying to understand and explain the way the natural world works. †The problems arise when religions claim that their explanations of the world are better than those of science and that if science disagrees then science must be wrong. †If proponents of ID want it to be taken seriously as science then they need to get out into the lab and the field and put together a working, testable theory. †As for comfort and companionship, there is no reason why religion shouldn't keep on doing what it does best. †I would help,though, if they dropped some of the less savory bits.

Kris,I made you a thread now, to have the reasonable discussion you claim you want to have.

So, what do you want to talk about?

Sigh.

Kris reminds me of someone online long ago who insisted he was being discriminated against because he was a straight, white, male. I pointed out to him that he was more likely being discriminated against because he was an obnoxious jerk.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

And why don't any of you bitch about the moderating, censoring, and banning on Panda's Thumb, the Bathroom Wall, Pharyngula, and here? Is it only considered moderating, censoring, and banning when YOU'RE the ones who aren't allowed to say whatever you want, where and when you want?

Do any of you own a mirror?

Ah the classic line.

Kris says "Of course I can't prove it, because I want it to be true. †The fact that it isn't true is not my problem. †I'll post this scree that it's 'obvious'."

Let's see... does anyone here, including Kris, think I'm a hypocrite. †If so, please post links to the places where I have shown my hypocrisy. †Please, I want to know... since I, more than anything else on Gaia's Green Earth, loathe hypocrites.

But you can't do it, Kris. †You can't show that I'm a hypocrite (because I'm not). †And you're too cowardly to admit that you are wrong. †

Whatever, if you ever want to have an adult conversation, let me know.

You wouldn't know what an "adult conversation" is if your life depended on it. Hypocrite. And you're the coward.

--------------The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

You guys make science look real bad. No wonder so many people don't trust science.

Not sure about that, Kris. I think what makes science (or rather any particular theory) look bad is if it turns out not to be true when tested by experiment.

I got interested by chance in ID about 6 years ago and, since then, have been banned at all but one (ARN - which has adopted the alternative strategy of not permitting new registrations) of the ID sites that I am aware of that actually permit comments. It seemed to me that asking simple questions about ID or correcting misinformation about evolutionary theory were the usual reasons for a ban (though not the pretext, if mentioned at all).

ID's problem (as regards to science rather than politics or apologetics) in my view is simply that there is no coherent ID theory and being asked for details seems to be upsetting for ID proponents.

Solution; get a testable theory of ID, unless you know where to find one already.

Alan, I can't reasonably comment on why you were banned from those sites since I haven't seen what was said by you or anyone else. I have read some discussions on Uncommon Descent (UD), and have noticed that some of the ID proponents do argue fairly strongly at times but they're a LOT more decent about it than people typically are here, or on sites like Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula. I've also noticed that some of the ID proponents quote or cite scientific studies to support some of their claims... snip

Kris,

I will agree with you that the tone at Pharyngula can sometimes be counter-productive, but all of these sites, especially PT, are paragons of tolerance compared with UD or TT. If you are interested, I can review for you precisely why I was banned from UD. I am sure many others here can do the same. The data are in, respectful dissent is not allowed. It matters little whether the remaining contributors are polite to each other - the dialog has been stifled, leaving the echo chamber free to MISQUOTE and MISCITE scientific studies - no-one is left there to correct them.To repeat, if you are interested, I can show you why I was banned. But I don't think you are interested, I think you are just a concern troll. I predict your reply will focus on my penultimate sentence.

I don't doubt that UD and some other sites are intolerant of some comments but that doesn't make it right for this site or any other religion bashing site to also be intolerant. This site, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, and some others are just as much an echo chamber as the sites you people condemn.

--------------The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

You guys make science look real bad. No wonder so many people don't trust science.

Not sure about that, Kris. I think what makes science (or rather any particular theory) look bad is if it turns out not to be true when tested by experiment.

I got interested by chance in ID about 6 years ago and, since then, have been banned at all but one (ARN - which has adopted the alternative strategy of not permitting new registrations) of the ID sites that I am aware of that actually permit comments. It seemed to me that asking simple questions about ID or correcting misinformation about evolutionary theory were the usual reasons for a ban (though not the pretext, if mentioned at all).

ID's problem (as regards to science rather than politics or apologetics) in my view is simply that there is no coherent ID theory and being asked for details seems to be upsetting for ID proponents.

Solution; get a testable theory of ID, unless you know where to find one already.

Alan, I can't reasonably comment on why you were banned from those sites since I haven't seen what was said by you or anyone else. I have read some discussions on Uncommon Descent (UD), and have noticed that some of the ID proponents do argue fairly strongly at times but they're a LOT more decent about it than people typically are here, or on sites like Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula. I've also noticed that some of the ID proponents quote or cite scientific studies to support some of their claims... snip

Kris,

I will agree with you that the tone at Pharyngula can sometimes be counter-productive, but all of these sites, especially PT, are paragons of tolerance compared with UD or TT. If you are interested, I can review for you precisely why I was banned from UD. I am sure many others here can do the same. The data are in, respectful dissent is not allowed. It matters little whether the remaining contributors are polite to each other - the dialog has been stifled, leaving the echo chamber free to MISQUOTE and MISCITE scientific studies - no-one is left there to correct them.To repeat, if you are interested, I can show you why I was banned. But I don't think you are interested, I think you are just a concern troll. I predict your reply will focus on my penultimate sentence.

I don't doubt that UD and some other sites are intolerant of some comments but that doesn't make it right for this site or any other religion bashing site to also be intolerant. This site, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, and some others are just as much an echo chamber as the sites you people condemn.

Okay, let's start again. Please continue the exchange on the second thread started just for you (because, you know, we're so intolerant and all).

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

If I were commenting on the DI site I wouldn't say things like I do here. The reason being that they are much more likely to actually discuss something than to resort to name calling and other insults. On this site, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, and other religion bashing sites the vitriol is so out of control that the only way to get you guys to even pay attention is to be as blunt as possible.

I agree with you about the lynch-mob mentality that can erupt in the Pharyngula comments (although it's far from being just there) but isn't that the price you pay for free speech? †Free speech is not about just allowing what you personally find agreeable and inoffensive, it is in the quote (wrongly) attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

UD and DI are criticized because they are far less tolerant of dissent than PT. † † † †

Quote

The DI site has likely received so many attacks, insults, and threats that they probably just figure it's best to not allow comments at all, and frankly, I don't blame them.

Website administrators are fully entitled to impose whatever standards of moderation they choose and any visitors should expect to be held to them. †But if they do subject comments to draconian restrictions they cannot at the same time present themselves as champions of free enquiry and speech, not without being called on it. † † † †

Quote

I was banned from Panda's Thumb and the Bathroom Wall and Pharyngula. Some of my comments were either removed or never posted.

I was called a "moral monster" by Bully Arrington and later banned from Uncommon Descent. †Many years back I was also the victim of a pack attack on Pharyngula for arguing againt abortion. †The difference was UD banned me, PZ didn't. † † † †

Quote

The vast majority of the people who post on Panda's Thumb, the Bathroom Wall, Pharyngula, and other religion bashing sites aren't really standing up for science. They're just haters who need something to hate and bash, and if it weren't religion it would just be something else.

I see them more as reactionary. †The wildebeeste infidels or gnu atheists or whatever they call themselves are a reaction to the centuries of oppression of non-believers by the various religions. †Even today there are many in this country that don't believe atheists should be citizens and that they rank below pedophiles in terms of respectability. †As for the chances of a self-proclaimed atheist being elected to public office they are usually calculated at a p-value of snowball-in-hell. †There is a Dark Side to religion that cannot be ignored. † † † †

Quote

If the science is well done but is still provisional or incomplete, don't be afraid to admit it. Stop acting like you know it all or that science knows it all. Acting like that makes you look as pompous and delusional as the most flagrant religious wackos.

Scientists are human just like everyone else so you will find examples who overstate their case for various reasons. †Mostly, though, they are well aware of the limitations of their knowledge, more so than the critics who are usually responsible for setting up the strawman of the arrogant boffin. †

Need I remind you that Newtonian mechanics were superseded by relativity theory, not as a result of lay critics pointing out holes that professional physicists were supposed to have missed, but because scientists understood in detail the problems with the old theory and therefore what its successor would need to do. †A number of scientists were groping towards a solution, Einstein managed to get there first.

Well-established theories are not overturned easily and that's as it should be. †If you have something that works reasonably well, you only give it up when someone offers something demonstrably better. †Science isn't about defending some dogma - if that were the case biologists would still be defending the inerrancy of every last word of On the Origin of Species - it is about hanging on to something that works until something that works better comes along. † † † †

Many of you regularly argue that ID and creationism and religion in general don't have a satisfactory 'replacement' for the theory of evolution or just about any other aspect of science. You expect them to have that satisfactory replacement before you will even consider any of their theories or beliefs (take your pick). Well, what does science have that will satisfactorily replace all religious beliefs? For instance, does science have anything that will provide people the comfort and feeling of security they get from their religious beliefs? How about the companionship?

Science isn't trying to replace religion as the "opium of the people", it is just trying to understand and explain the way the natural world works. †The problems arise when religions claim that their explanations of the world are better than those of science and that if science disagrees then science must be wrong. †If proponents of ID want it to be taken seriously as science then they need to get out into the lab and the field and put together a working, testable theory. †As for comfort and companionship, there is no reason why religion shouldn't keep on doing what it does best. †I would help,though, if they dropped some of the less savory bits.

There's no such thing as free speech at Pharyngla, Panda's Thumb, or here.

UD and DI may be less tolerant, although I can't judge that without seeing every comment ever submitted to them, but it shouldn't be a matter of who's "less tolerant". Selective censoring and banning on any forum does not allow or promote free speech. Just because censoring and banning may be done less here or on Panda's Thumb or Pharyngula doesn't make it any more right.

You said, "Website administrators are fully entitled to impose whatever standards of moderation they choose and any visitors should expect to be held to them. †But if they do subject comments to draconian restrictions they cannot at the same time present themselves as champions of free enquiry and speech, not without being called on it."

Yeah, and that applies to this site, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, and any other site.

You say you see the haters and bashers as "more reactionary". It's interesting that when I 'react' I'm accused of being all kinds of bad things. Apparently it just depends on who's being reactionary to what, or more accurately, whether someone is saying what others want to hear, or not, no matter who started it.

Being reactionary to what religion did in the past is like black people bitching about slavery. My ancestors were likely oppressed by religion and they may have been slaves too but I don't really care. They're all dead and that was a long time ago.

There's nothing wrong with being reactionary now about things that happen now, depending on what happens and the reaction of course. Some religious wackos should be reacted to and pressured to stop their holier than thou bullshit but that shouldn't be the job for science or scientists, and it doesn't make science look better if it's used simply as a weapon against religion. A lot of scientists spend a lot of time and effort trying to use science as that direct weapon and some do appear to be trying to replace religion with science as the opium of the people. Education about science and nature would probably be more effective, and especially with children.

I agree that religion, or at least some religions, get away with way too much, have unsavory bits, and are detrimental to society in some ways, but I'm not convinced that simply bitching about religion on a website is going to change anything for the better. There has to be a better way. Science and nature must be made interesting, accessible, understandable, and attractive to the masses, and especially to children.

Maybe it's time to 'outsmart' the religious zealots who want to cram religion into schools and every other aspect of life. There's a battle going on near where I live. Sea lions congregate below a dam and eat too many salmon, according to the 'authorities', even though humans have killed, polluted, and destroyed more salmon and their habitat than all the Sea Lions that ever lived could do in thousands of years. So, what's the remedy? Kill the Sea lions of course. Throw explosives into to the water too (which also kills salmon) and spend a fortune driving around in boats chasing the Sea lions away from the dam. Is that the best we humans can do? Can't we outsmart a Sea lion and come up with a better remedy? Can't science or scientists 'outsmart' the pushers of the unsavory bits and fairy tales in religion and find effective ways to get people interested in science and nature?

--------------The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

I don't doubt that UD and some other sites are intolerant of some comments but that doesn't make it right for this site or any other religion bashing site to also be intolerant. This site, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, and some others are just as much an echo chamber as the sites you people condemn.

That's pronounced tu quoque, Kris. It's a logical fallacy. That seems to be all you've brought to the table this time, same as last time...and the seventeen times before that.

The MadPanda, FCD

--------------"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

Making threats against other participants coupled with public release of personal information crosses the line into cyberstalking, a prima facie illegal activity. Looking back in my email archives, "Kris" was banned for cause on PT, with multiple people pointing out the cyberstalking incident. I hadn't recalled that when "Kris" started posting here. Usually, a ban in one forum I'm associated with gets carried over to the rest, and certainly there are signs that the belligerence behind the event on PT is being carried over here.

I've said it before, and it bears repeating: Those most in need of being moderated are also those least likely to acknowledge that plain fact. I have no compunction whatever in banning people who can't refrain from cyberstalking. "Kris" has gotten an undeserved second chance to make a point; right now it is up to him whether he blows it or not. In case that isn't clear enough, cyberstalking is "excessively annoying".

Making threats against other participants coupled with public release of personal information crosses the line into cyberstalking, a prima facie illegal activity. Looking back in my email archives, "Kris" was banned for cause on PT, with multiple people pointing out the cyberstalking incident. I hadn't recalled that when "Kris" started posting here. Usually, a ban in one forum I'm associated with gets carried over to the rest, and certainly there are signs that the belligerence behind the event on PT is being carried over here.

I've said it before, and it bears repeating: Those most in need of being moderated are also those least likely to acknowledge that plain fact. I have no compunction whatever in banning people who can't refrain from cyberstalking. "Kris" has gotten an undeserved second chance to make a point; right now it is up to him whether he blows it or not. In case that isn't clear enough, cyberstalking is "excessively annoying".

Tell you what Wesley, send all my posts from Panda's Thumb, and all the posts from other people leading up to mine, to any prosecuting attorney you like. Then come back and try to convince me that mine are illegal. Go ahead, do it.

Are you going to ban me? I thought someone said this was a free speech site (or words to that effect) and that I don't have to worry about moderation or banning.

What's really bugging you Wesley? Is it that I don't bash religious people in the vicious way you'd like me to? Is it that I noticed the massive hypocrisy of you and this site with the so-called rule against bashing religious beliefs, even though that's all you and this site ever do? Is it that I noticed the other so-called rules that are constantly broken, and never enforced on your fellow religion bashers here?

Ya know, if I'm as stupid and screwed up as some of you say I am it should be easy for you to deal with me. You should be able to make arguments against me with logic, truth, and evidence, and you should be easily able to respond to what I actually say instead of what you think I said. You guys do claim to be well educated scientists, don't you? If that's the case, you should know more than enough to argue against me or anyone else without any strain whatsoever and without resorting to name calling, insults, or threats of banning. Of course it would help you if you first lived up to the so-called rules here and presented yourselves in an honest way.

I doubt that you noticed it but a few people have responded to me in a reasonably decent way, and my responses to them are reasonably decent too. Most of you here are looking for a fight, but when someone gives you one you blame them for it. If you guys don't want a fight, don't incite one.

Try going into a church or a grocery store and talking to someone like you do here. See how long it takes for the cops to haul YOU away, even if someone in the church or store punches your lights out.

What many of you apparently don't understand is that every day it's the same old shit here and on Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula, etc., and you set an example every day with your hypocritical, hateful, arrogant behavior. Sometimes someone comes along and questions you or gives you back what you dish out. If you don't like it, make this a private forum for invited religion bashers only.

I want to tell you guys something, and this is the truth. Before I read anything on Panda's Thumb or Pharyngula or here I bashed religious beliefs pretty much the same way you guys do, although not on a daily basis. Now, after reading posts and comments here and on those other sites, and having arguments with some people, I have a different view of things and I'm more inclined to cut some religious people (but not all) a little slack, and I also now realize that some so-called scientists and science supporters are just as hypocritical, delusional, and arrogant as any power hungry religious zealots are.

I can't help but wonder how many people have been influenced, by the words and actions of religion bashers, to be more tolerant of religion and less friendly toward science. I'm still friendly toward science itself (good science that is), but I'm more critical and unfriendly toward some of the people involved in it now.

Here's something you all might want to consider: I am strongly scientifically inclined and I am not religious at all. If someone like me is turned off by some of the ways people act on sites like this or Panda's Thumb or Pharyngula, just think about how religious people (whether mildly religious or total zealots) must feel when they view this site or those others. Like I've said before, you guys may be doing science more harm than good.

--------------The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

You've had the floor now for several days. Are you going to make a scientific point sometime soon? Or are you just going to whine about PT? Being here isn't mandatory, you know. You don't like it, find another site to troll.

Free speech is something between you and the government. Commenting on a forum like this is a privilege, not a right. Nor is it my job to be finicky about stuff at the borderline between legal and illegal; if it looks dodgy, that's bad enough for me. The cyberstalker does not have legal recourse if his privileges get yanked, but the cyberstalker's victim quite possibly may have recourse if a forum fails to respond promptly to a problem. But thanks for encouraging me to take things up with authorities; I am checking into what your ISP and local authorities consider to be beyond the pale.

Threatening Material or Content: IP Services shall not be used to host, post, transmit, or re-transmit any content or material (or to create a domain name or operate from a domain name), that harasses, or threatens the health or safety of others. In addition, for those IP Services that utilize [X] provided web hosting, [X] reserves the right to decline to provide such services if the content is determined by [X] to be obscene, indecent, hateful, malicious, racist, defamatory, fraudulent, libelous, treasonous, excessively violent or promoting the use of violence or otherwise harmful to others.

Here's something you all might want to consider: I am strongly scientifically inclined and I am not religious at all. If someone like me is turned off by some of the ways people act on sites like this or Panda's Thumb or Pharyngula, just think about how religious people (whether mildly religious or total zealots) must feel when they view this site or those others. Like I've said before, you guys may be doing science more harm than good.

Classic statement of concern trolling, there.

There are threads here that should attract the strongly scientifically inclined, threads with names like "Science Break". People post about science.

I predict that Kris is not very interested in the Science Break thread, because it is about science, not Kris.

So, Kris, what kind of science interests you? We know that Joe G has telescopes, does field experiments with watermelon rinds and ticks, what about you? To be clear, I'm asking for a few sentences about science, not yourself.

Harassment. (1) A person commits the crime of harassment if the person intentionally:

(a) Harasses or annoys another person by:

(A) Subjecting such other person to offensive physical contact; or

(B) Publicly insulting such other person by abusive words or gestures in a manner intended and likely to provoke a violent response;

(b) Subjects another to alarm by conveying a false report, known by the conveyor to be false, concerning death or serious physical injury to a person, which report reasonably would be expected to cause alarm; or

(2) A person is criminally liable for harassment if the person knowingly permits any telephone or electronic device under the personís control to be used in violation of subsection (1) of this section.

(3) Harassment is a Class B misdemeanor.

(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3) of this section, harassment is a Class A misdemeanor if a person violates subsection (1) of this section by subjecting another person to offensive physical contact and the offensive physical contact consists of touching the sexual or other intimate parts of the other person.

Should we be concerned by his/her concern? Does it concern us? Hmmm. Not as far as I'm concerned.

What was that nice fraud perpetrated by a poster at Sheril and Chris's blog, The Intersection? Some chap named Tom Johnson or something wasn't it? Didn't he make claims that the tone of new atheists etc was actively turning people away from science, and that he's seen it in action and could prove all these so called big named people were nothing more than mockers and scoffers? Something along those lines, IIRC. I seem to remember it was bought hook line and and sinker by Sheril, Chris and like minded folks, and touted from the heavens as proof positive that PZ et al were hurting science (or some such). Now didn't it turn out that he'd made the whole thing up? Gosh! Why yes it did. Hmmmm. I wonder why my Spidey-sense is tingling with regards to Kris. This is all so.....familiar. I also wonder, where's the evidence behind this claim of ridicule turning people off science?*

Oh that's right, there isn't any beyond shrill shrieking, anecdote and hysterical cries of "won't someone PLEASE think of the children". Maybe Kris hasn't grasped the idea of praagmatic pluralism in communication (a position I think I could genuinely defend), i.e. using the technique most appropriate to the situation. Sometimes, ridicule works, and the productive effect is rarely aimed at the target of the ridicule.

Louis

*Waits for the inevitable: "But where's the evidence that mockery works?". The problem is, I'm not sure anyone claimed it does "work", or at least perhaps that it it is working towards a different goal. Didn't Thomas Jefferson say something about ridicule and coherent propositions once?

Annnnnnnnd more pointless whining by Kris. You appear to be extraordinarily thick (and not in the way that women find appealing)* so I'll just take a chance and do something completely out of character by being blunt:

Kris, nobody here buys your male bovine excrement about being "scientifically minded" and "not religious". You came in, guns blazing, just like every creationist assmunch who has come before you. You have nothing of value to contribute, you have no salient point to make, and you are fucking boring as hell. If you don't like PT (I'm beginning to get the feeling that this might, perhaps, be true), feel free to just fuck right off, then. Seriously, you will NOT be missed and the vacuum you create (Henry?) will inevitably be filled by another not entirely unlike yourself, more's the pity.